Dong Mine Joint Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ma-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

June 14, 2007

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap616 decided January 10, 2007

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 64,153,860 for 197 against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2004 (the KRW 64,153,360 as stated in the complaint shall be deemed to be written by mistake), KRW 112,516,380 for value-added tax of KRW 2, and KRW 79,084,090 for value-added tax of KRW 1,198 for value-added tax of KRW 2,010,290 for second period, KRW 2,010,290 for value-added tax of KRW 13,401,560 for 199.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

A. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding “(d)(1) of 2.D.(1) as to the assertion related to sexual store” (Article 10, 4, et al. of the first instance court’s judgment) shall be added as follows.

As to the assertion regarding the gender direct sales outlet

In determining the amount of a corporation’s income, the burden of proving whether there was profits to be included in the gross income or the amount of such profits is, in principle, the tax authority's burden of proving that there is an error or omission in the details of a taxpayer’s return, and, in general, the tax authority's burden of proving that there is an error or omission in the details of the return, and if it is recognized that there is an error or omission in the details of the return and on-site investigation are possible, it may be corrected by other data. However, if it is not recognized as credibility to the extent that the value of evidence can not be easily denied because there is no specific content of the sales in the confirmation document submitted by the taxpayer, even if it is a taxpayer’s confirmation, it does not constitute other data instead of the books or documentary evidence that can be the basis for the on-site investigation (Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7770 Decided June 24, 2003).

In this case, each of the statements in Nos. 11-2, Eul evidence No. 11-2, Eul evidence No. 23, Eul evidence No. 28-1, and Eul evidence No. 28-2 is insufficient to recognize the fact that sexually operated store issued false sales tax invoices different from the facts of the plaintiff's name in the first period of No. 282,349,000 for the first period of No. 1999 on the grounds that the detailed details of the plaintiff's disguised or processed transactions did not appear, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the imposition of additional tax on the first defendant under different premise is unlawful, and the plaintiff'

B. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following additional determinations are added to the blanket title of the end of the part “2.D. (2)(E)” (No. 10, 14 of the first instance judgment):

“The Defendant alleged that the portion exceeding the above amount, which is the legitimate tax amount of the value-added tax for the first period portion of the year 1998, should be revoked among the disposition of this case, since the amount of the penalty tax on the aggregate tax invoice for the first period portion of the tax invoice for the year 1998 was 2,637,163 won (65,929,090 X20%). However, the Defendant’s assertion that the value-added tax for the first period portion of the year 1998 exceeds the exclusion period and becomes null and void, as seen thereafter.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-dae (Presiding Judge)